Big Beat Steve

N.Y., 1947, with Joe Thomas and Rex Stewart (Bill Gottlieb photo).

It might, depending on what you actually want to say ... "Rebuilt"?

The one of the Australian Jazz Quartet of the 50s? Australian expat in Detroit?

Out of curiosity ... Was the 5-LP set announced on various sites linked above actually issued? The clickable links in the texts that refer to the LPs then lead you to the CD reissue.

Interesting ... thanks ... styrene seems to have been used much longer than in the 50s only. If the statement below from your link is correct as a telltale identifier ... From what I've read somewhere once upon a time (maybe here), the easy way to see if you have a styrene 45 (instead of vinyl) is to look at the edge. It won't have any kind of "special" edge to it. It will be very straight & flat, and will be even height-wise with the rest of the record's "body" (for lack of a better term) across its entire edge. .. then some of those I'd inspected look like they should be styrene too. But I have my doubts (not only because it says "unbreakable" on the label). Of course i never tried to test their "flexing" either.

Just out of curiosity and trying to narrow down the time frame etc.: What label, what (number) series? And is there a way to clearly identify them visually? (Edge, dead wax, etc.?) I just checked a few 50s 10" U.S: Decca LPs that i have and they do look and feel like vinyl to me and all say "Long playing unbreakable microgroove" on the label. They all are from the DL series but the labels differ (red & gold or black with gold script or black with silver script which all seem to have existed in parallel). The only 50s 12" I was able to locate at a quick glance (50s black label, and it does not say "Unbreakable") looks vinylish to me too.

Yes you can indeed. E.g. if you ship a 50s original inside 2 flimsy covers of (coincidence?) polystyrene and expect it to survive a cross-the-pond shipment. Happened to me (as a buyer) in my very early eBay days with a Decca LP (rainbow-stripe label and therefore early 60s pressing, so definitely no "styrene" - I suppose these were early 10" LPs). BTW, I also have a (unfortunately rather battered and scratchy) white-label promo pressing of the abovementioned Bengt Hallberg LP on Epic. It does NOT say "Nonbreakable" on the label so it looks like the people at Columbia assumed that the men of the trade and DJs who'd get hold of such items would know anyway this was "non-breakable".

Am now playing my copy of this very record (LN 3377, yellow Epic label, deep groove). No problem on my turntable. It's just vinyl. Other Epics I have from that period (Bengt Hallberg LN 3375, Swedes from Jazzville LN 3309, Jazz on the Left Bank LN 3387) carry the same "Nonbreakable" tag on the label. Must have been a sales gimmick at a time (2nd half of the 50s) when vinyl was all there but 78s had not yet disappeared from the record shops). Never would have thought this was anything but vinyl.

RIP. She impressed many people here at lindy hop classes and conventions and related interviews and lectures where she gave first-hand "eyewitness of an era" accounts to a generation of swing dancer youngsters.

Odejnar or Odjenar? The tune is commonly listed as "Odjenar". And the liner notes to the Prestige reissue LP indicate her name with this spelling too.

I don't think this one below has been mentioned either (3/4 of the book are Wolff, the rest is Katz and while the Katz photos aren't bad at all they just somehow lack the sharpness of the Wolff pics). http://www.jazzprezzo.de/bluenote.htm So if I got you right, Brownie, the "new" book promoted here had already been published by Flammarion in 2014 and about 25% of the contents have been around in other Wolff books?

Wilbert BARANCO trio! Says so clearly on the label.

At least they'd show again (by collating his early stuff) that they go where others can't be bothered. Is there unissued live material from these early days oout there? Wouldn't that (making up at least part of a CD) be a prerequisite for an Uptown release?

Threatening or not ... having read that amputated thread since, I would have not seen that statement as being that threatening either, BUT ... In the same vein IMVHO there is nothing that offensive about that "certain type of American" either. Everyone following the discussion of guns and gun ownership in the USA (particularly when another madman has run amok again and killed inocent bystanders or some immature child has been let loose playing with loaded guns left unattended by a waaaay too dumb parent and killing his/her playmate) is that it is FAR from so that EVERY American is all out and eager to obtain, cherish and wield his/her gun as if his "Americanness" depened on it or even condone possession of guns. By all accounts and cutting ANY slack for possible exaggeration in what the news people write on that subject everywhere, it DOES look like there are plenty of Americans out there these days too who are all opposed to what the NRA and gun ownership advocacy stand for. In short, "one certain type of Americans" wants and cherishes their guns (of which the "stand your ground" approach may be fairly understandable and ONE reason why they cherish it - but just one) and another "certain type of American" does not approve of this at all and fears this will make things worse in too many situations. So what, then? Look at it any way you want, but OVERALL your country is quite divided about this. But that's a problem that will have to be solved within the country. Us others can only watch ...

Indeed. I cannot even recall that "contentious" thread and have definitely never looked it up (the thread title must have held zero incentive for me to do so) so I have no idea what the fuss was all about. At any rate, the loss of Paul Secor's contributions would be a major one. I hope he reconsiders.

Don't confuse Anti-Netanjahu and anti-semite. (I don't go for a lot of that unconditional pro-palestine stuff myself but this would not be the time and place here now anyway )

I had to smile when his (AAJ) nick "Christiern" was brought up. He sometimes used that over there to try to pull new forumists' legs (thinking the newbies were unaware of his true identity, i guess) - mine included at one itime - but not always to much avail. Sobered him at least momentarily as it seems. As for his posts, yes he got carried away from time to time and may have alienated some (and i can understand the "bitter old man" remark - let's hope WE fare better at that age) but he DID speak his mind and backed it up with personal experience and exposure so it wasn't just some mud slinging (in most cases as far as I can tell) but rather a case of "setting the record straight". And if this involved putting some (who had seen thesmelves differently and would have liked others to do so too) in their place then in the overall picture this wasn't the worst thing IMHO and added some insight that the interested observer otherwise never would have gotten. I am not sure if he realized all the time that alienating others by extreme candor (even if the facts were 100% on his side) is not the best way to get what credit will be due you (because there always will be some who have more clout and an agenda of their own that may run contrary to your interests) but I think from what I read in his posts and on his blog he personally took it in stride in most cases. And if he still took a swipe at whoever he felt was trying to rake in credit without being entitled to it then he was perfectly entitled to do so IMHO. And yes - if nothing else were to remain of his statements - his description of when a photographic document can be considered to have been "drigged" will remain in my vocabulary forever. His (apparently quite justified) target wasn't the only one of that kind in that publishing business.

As far as I know - yes. The recording date places them all in the 50-year P.D. department. At any rate, I don't think these recordings (most of them with Tony Sheridan) were ever OOP for any lengthy period from sometime in the early to mid-70s onwards. There have been tons of repackaged reissues of them, many on labels that have nothing to do with Polydor, the original label. There even is a fairly recent vinyl reissue of the tracks on LP on a label called Wax Love Records (sounds very PD-ish) that reproduced the cover artwork of the original Tony Sheridan/Beatles "My Bonnie" 45. https://www.discogs.com/de/Tony-Sheridan-And-The-Beat-Brothers-Tony-Sheridan-and-The-Beat-Brothers-My-Bonnie/release/13498728

Ok, so it's actually a couple months' material more that has gone P.D. than I had thought.

To sum up the gist of it, in 2012 the European copyright laws were changed and the protectionn period that had been 50 years up to that period was extended to 70 years from the time the law was passed sometime in 2012. But the law did not become applicable retropactively. I.e. released recordings (IIRC previously unissued recordings are a differnet kettle but I think it's a grey zone the way this is actually handled) that were 50 or more years old (from the date of recording) by that date in 2012 remained in the public domain whereas those that were not yet 50 years old will only fall into the public domain after 70 years have passed. As Cliff Richard and Paul McCartney were instrumental in getting this copyright extension in law (guess to protect which recordings) this lw has often been referred to as the "Cliff Richard" or "Paul McCartney" law over here.

This ran here in a pop culture/"zeitgeist" mag in 1984: "Woodstock 15th anniversary reunion".

Hans, NOW you are treading extremely closely to getting REALLY political. Let's not pretend it is all a bed of roses here the way the EU ACTUALLY works (or not). Besides, the above statement said to have been made by Ken Peplowski sounds rather weird. It seems to me like Mr Peplowski is unaware of what exchange rates are all about and that it is not the natural course of things for exchange rates to remain stable all the time. Years ago (before there was the Euro) we had a freelancer duo from the UK occasionally working for us in our small agency. One day they bluntly told us it no longer was of interest to them to continue working for us as over time the GBP-DM exchange rate had become increasingly unfavorable for them so they more or less bluntly told us to go beat it. Well ... that's life and this happens with exchange rates in all directions over time and sometimes requires decisions to be made ... But blaming touring in the UK all of a sudden becoming no longer worth working in the UK due to a Brexit-induced drop of the exchange rate? Might have happened at other times too if you hit a bad moment. IIRC the slump of the GBP vs the Euro after Brexit became official was not even enough to all of a sudden make it exceedingly interesting for me to re-start buying stuff through ebay.co.uk again. So maybe Mr Peplowski ought to get out of his US$-centric filter bubble.

If you really consider "162 EUR" for a CD to be just "not cheap" then you must live on a planet all of your own.

The reason I thought so was that through the years I have had two cases of records (vinyl, admittedly) where for some reason a label had been stuck on top of another one in whatever attempt at relabeling but I was able to lift it off without much effort and without any damage caused to the label underneath by the remainder of the "glue". Either the glue had become bone dry to become totally non-adhesive at all or the glueing had been insufficient in the first place. At any rate, what would have been the point of relabeling a record for sale by the NEW owner/label if you "update" one side of the record only?

Thaks a lot, everybody. This is really appreciated. And an odd story indeed that fills a gap in the "post-Keynote" Keynote story. As for the Mercury label being on one side only, I wonder if maybe the pasted-over Mercury label had already peeled off and got lost on the other side that now has "only" the Keynote label left?